The Trial of Jesus

Session 2 - The Procurator


The fullest, and therefore our base, account (notwithstanding that he is traditionally regarded more as theological commentary than history) must be Saint John's, into which we can incorporate the additional material supplied by the other Evangelists.

We may expect that, as is invariable with such reports that do not purport to be verbatim transcripts, there will be flaws in the record, even outright omissions. The main problem, however, is the discrepancy regarding the flagellation and events surrounding it. John (19:1John 19:1(NIV)

1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged.
) has this, and the concurrent abuse by the legionaries, as an intermediate, rather than culminating stage: following it, in his version, comes the public parade of Jesus before His accusers which is designed to provoke sympathy in them and moderate the sentence. (Significantly, this is consistent with Luke (23:16 &22Luke23:16, 22 (NIV)

16 "Therefore, I will punish him and then release him."

22 For the third time he spoke to them: "Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him."
). This John locates during the final phase of the interrogation, and thereby affords the world of devotion and art the otherwise unobtainable Ecce Homo tableau. Must devotion then, here as so often elsewhere, give place to archaeology?

Thenfollows the offer of customary amnesty. And it immediately precedes Pilate's private enquiry of Jesus (on which see shortly below) as to His origins (John 19:9John 19:1(NIV)

19 and he went back inside the palace. "Where do you come from?" he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer.
) which appears to refer to the discovery of the Galilean connection (Luke 23:5ffLuke 23:5ff (NIV)

5 But they insisted, "He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here."

6 On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean.

7 When he learned that Jesus was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time.
) leading to the submission of the case to Antipas. Matthew and Mark simply connect these atrocities to the death-sentence, and itemize them as preliminaries to the crucifixion (Matthew 27:26Matthew 27:26 (NIV)

26 Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
) (Mark 15:15Mark 15:15 (NIV)

15 Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
) ; and are wholly silent about the visit to Antipas.

Luke is more complex. Firstly, the promise of flagellation is, as with John, extended as an alternative to capital punishment - his repetition allows little uncertainty on that (Luke 23:16 & 22Luke 23:16 & 22 (NIV)

16 "Therefore, I will punish him and then release him"

22 For the third time he spoke to them: "Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him."
) Whilst it is theoretically arguable that Luke rather intends: "having chastised him, I will let him go . . . . " I doubt that this would harmonize with the approbation accorded to Luke by most Greek scholars for his fluidity and precision of syntax, such that exactitude in fitting the language to the message is to be expected of him. Accordingly, this diversion being ignored, in his sequence the case then proceeds to sentence and execution and no flagellation in fact takes place (or at any rate is recorded as taking place). But this exchange follows the submission to Antipas. On that, Luke is categorical not only the explicit sequence affirms this, but also the explicit testimony of Pilate himself (Luke 23:15Luke 23:15 (NIV)

15 "Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death".
) . This is itself endorsed by23:22Luke 23:22 (NIV)

22 For the third time he spoke to them: "Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.".
 (following vv 4 & 14Luke 23:4, 14 (NIV)

4 Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no basis for a charge against this man."

14 and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him"
); in the course of which last exchange the possibility of amnesty appears to be raised for the first time (vv 17 & 18Luke 23:17, 18 (NIV)

17 Now he was obliged to release one man to them at the Feast.

(Verse 17 does not appear in some manuscripts, however)

18 With one voice they cried out, "Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!"
)

The divergence thus stands as follows.

Matthew/Mark Luke John
Offer of amnesty - 27:15; 15:6 Reference to the case of Antipas - 23:7 Offer of amnesty - 18:39
Flagellation - 19:1
Reference to Antipas - 19:9
  Question of amnesty (not previously raised - 23:17, 18
Suggestion of commuting to flagellation (no account thereof) - 23:15, 22		  
Death sentence and flagellation - 27:26; 15:15 Death sentence - 23:24 Death sentence - 19:16

This resolves itself into two questions.

  1. Whether the flagellation followed the death sentence?

  2. Whether the submission to Antipas preceded the negotiations over Barabbas?

The first is marginally less subtle, and easier to resolve. One might contend that Mark and Matthew do not unambiguously affirm that the scourging follows the death-sentence (Mark 15:15Mark 15:15 (NIV)

15 Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
 Matthew 27:26John 19:1(NIV)

26 Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
 - 'when he had scourged.... delivered...' [to crucifixion] is just as apt, in English, to be rendered, "having [already?] scourged" - there is thus no outright conflict.) It would be outside the present scope to examine the pre-English texts of the Gospels to ascertain whether this is linguistically convincing: the apparent discrepancy between Luke and John as regards the point at which the Antipas episode occurred is sufficient to demand that either John's sequence or Luke's alternative must be adjusted.

Of these, the larger unlikelihood is the gratuitous duplication of punishment, something neither in accordance with Roman practice nor sought by the Council (nor indeed germane to their purpose) which would have been involved in Matthew's and Mark's scheme. An attempt, at once cynical, callous and futile, to bribe the Council from its purpose by this commutation of the sentence is overwhelmingly more probable. Pilate's principal failing was ineptitude rather than superfluous brutality.

Which yields us the Ecce Homo tableau as an incident in the Barabbas negotiations, and possibly overrides the sequence implicit in Luke's tenses ("will [propose to] chastise"). It is a pretty small adjustment, indeed. Luke's silence regarding the actual punishment, as opposed to the threat of it, doesn't yield to any obvious explanation - both John and the other Synoptics are clearly against him as to its having taken place. For whatever reason, he evidently takes the fact of it as read.

The remaining uncertainty, at what point in relation to these negotiations the detour via Antipas took place, turns on the respective weight to be accorded to Luke 23:15, 16Luke 23:15, 16 (NIV)

15 "Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death.

16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him."
 as evidencing the Herod incident's having occurred prior to the first mention of the amnesty, and John 19:9John 19:9 (NIV)

9 and he went back inside the palace. "Where do you come from?" he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer.
 as evidencing a preliminary to that incident, the Barabbas question having already been raised. It could be, on the one hand, that Luke 23:18Luke 23:18 (NIV)

18 With one voice they cried out, "Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!"
 is not the priests' first mention of Barabbas; or on the other that John has displaced Pilate's question in 19:9 from the earlier private interview. The latter still leaves little enough space in a pretty crowded narrative for the additional incident which admittedly, that oblique allusion apart, John doesn't record - but that remains the case at whatever point the session before Antipas took place: it is manifestly too circumstantial (and the author himself too conscientious) to be pure fiction on Luke's part. And it makes little difference to any material question - the politics, the indictment, the individuals' motives. To that extent it carries the hall-mark of authenticity as against literary contrivance.

On balance, the preferred sequence, which does no violence to Luke's tenses and assumes on John's part a small displacement in the context of a larger omission, now runs thus:

Locale

There is actually a fundamental divide among the experts as to whether these proceedings took place at the Antonia Fort or at Pilate's official residence in the Herodian Palace. I find the Dominican Father Vincent's preference for the former, in the face of the testimony of both Josephus and Phio, unconvincing. His dependance for this view on the excavation of the supposed 'gabbatha' on the Antonia site appears to involve a piece of circular reasoning: it is a pavement suitable to the function by reason of being, unlike all similar pavements, in the right place; this is the right place because it accommodates the appropriate pavement.

Further than that, the Evangelists also differ as to the precise location of the proceedings that ensue. It is only John who tells of interrogations conducted privately by Pilate - whose whole content is certainly that of intense exchange at close quarters rather than a formal, judicial hearing. Thus it is only he who feels any need to explain (somewhat lamely) the priests' refusal to enter into the praetorium, on account of the risk of ritual impurity. Luke, who is under no such compulsion to account for their station outside the hail, specifies (23:14Luke 23:14 (NIV)

14 and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him".
) that the entire cross-examination - or at any rate a material portion of it - was conducted qua curia, in the presence of the accusers. But in that event, the detail we have which is not of an intimate nature is manifestly too threadbare to constitute the full examination to which 23:14 is referring. Nothing turns on the description of the private quarters by a word which the A.V. translates as 'judgement hall' - it denoted simply the magistrates' official residence. But John presents us with various successive stages of the dialogue at differing removes from the public gaze, only concluding with Pilate's formal assumption of the magisterial seat to pass sentence (19:9John 19:19(NIV)

9 and he went back inside the palace. "Where do you come from?" he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer.
) - Matthew seems to indicate a somewhat lengthier period in that chair. (19:1Matthew 27:19 (NIV)

19 While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him".
).

It does less violence to the record to credit both accounts with some accuracy and to suppose that in addition to some element of the examination having taken place in public the more intimate exchanges detailed by John actually occurred, even if the picture which he paints does come close to the characters' imitating the movements of a weather-clock.

The account

It begins curiously. When asked the charge, the crowd (per both Luke 23:2Luke 23:2 (NIV)

2 And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ,a king".
 and Mark 15:1Mark 15:1 (NIV)

1 Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, reached a decision. They bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.
), apparently not a deputation but the full Council) immediately adopts a defiant, not to say deliberately obstructive, tone: "If he weren't a criminal we shouldn't have brought him to you."

One could easily misconstrue this opening, supposing that for the moment their immediate purpose is overshadowed by their resentment of Rome's hijack of their liberties, particularly in matters of law and ritual which are fundamental to the exercise of the faith, and most conspicuous at such a time of high festival.

But we need to go back one step. That supposition would be to overlook the very significant wording of Pilate's first question.

"What accusation do you bring against this man?!"

But the Procurator's function, as we have already noted, is not to re-open the substance of the case : it is to determine sentence. This is not supposed to be a substantive process. What he should have said to begin with was: "Of what crime does this man stand convicted?"

It is thus not all that irrational or surprising in them, when he improperly demands the substance of the "accusation" to come up with an entirely new accusation not previously canvassed in the Council, but tailored to his official interest - one of sedition (Luke 23:2Luke 23:2 (NIV)

2 And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king".
) . Technically, Pilate has got off on the wrong foot, and though not technically correct, their response is understandable. Result confusion on both sides, he as to his function, they as to his point of maximum vulnerability.

His response is predictable - "Deal with him yourselves in that case", obliging them to concede that their jurisdiction doesn't extent to capital cases. This answer satisfies Pilate's (or Rome's) vanity - their subservience having been acknowledged, he will deign to look into the matter.

(If John in his fullness were to be credited, as discussed previously, he has, in fact, already extended them one favour in coming out of the praetorium to receive the deputation rather than insisting that they present themselves before him; but the more probable situation, as we have conjectured, is that there was never any question of their entering within: the exterior lithostratos was always a proper place for the conduct of these proceedings even though the judge may have reserved some of it to discussion "in chambers".)

Following the preliminary skirmish, and armed with, as he supposes, a substantive charge against the Prisoner, no doubt he then conducts some form of interrogation whose detail is not reported, before adjourning into the hail to continue this examination in private.

His first question in this comparative seclusion is: "Are you indeed King of the Jews?"

This is specific according to Luke, (Luke 23:4Luke 23:4 (NIV)

4 Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, "I find no basis for a charge against this man".
) the assembly has charged Him with no more than claiming kingship in a loose, general sense - the reference to anointing not being that special royal consecration rite that Christian hindsight supposes, but merely a divine endorsement of some high vocation. Pilate can have had no more idea than most present-day Christians what that concept implied to its users..... ("He That Should Come"). "King of the Jews", on the other hand, in the Roman Procurator's mouth, means nothing less than a claimant to the office which had lapsed with the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C.. An office directly in conflict with his own.

"Anointed king"/"King of the Jews". An important disparity of titles. But both of them, it should be noted, matters relating to the disruption of public order - and unrelated to the offence of which He supposedly stands convicted. In that particular, a material departure from the first cause, the three Evangelists are substantially ad idem. Even John, who, by "Annas", semble, intends Caiaphas (v. first para. of Session 1 above), but does not go into the detail of it, is clear that it related exclusively to matters of faith. Even the prospective rebuilding of the Temple, an activity initiated by Herod the Great half a century earlier and still uncompleted, is no real concern of Rome's so long only as the remission of tribute remains uninterrupted. Even "Son of the Blessed", as canvassed in the Sanhedrin proceedings, is only with Christian hindsight a term imbued with implications of divinity, and certainly, at the time, not of royalty. Nothing in those first proceedings provided the substance of such allegation of political disruption as Pilate is at this moment burdened with having to investigate.

Now we come to one of the most revealing details about this man, Jesus' inquiry whether the suggestion is of his own initiative or fed to him by some other. It indicates a dialogue in which is evinced a genuine interest in the other, on both sides. What the question firstly tells us is that Jesus did not hear the assembly's charge a moment or two before, tending to confirm the analysis we have preferred as to this hearing's being conducted on two levels. To suppose that His perceptions are already so deadened by this stage of the ill-treatment as to have made Him oblivious of what is going on around Him does not accord with the continuing, customary acuity with which He conducts the ensuing dialogue. It does seem on the other hand to indicate some uncertainty of handling on the part of the praetorium officers, perhaps hustling Jesus inside immediately the Procurator indicated that he would accept jurisdiction, before the charge was elaborated, dragging Him outside again for further questioning, and then back in once more.

But more significantly, Our Lord at this point reveals more than concern for the necessary mechanics of His Mission, His fate at this juncture - He reveals what has always been characteristic of Him throughout His ministry, a close concern with the individual addressing Him. It is as much that He is telling Pilate, rather than enquiring of him, what makes him tick.

The Procurator's reply expresses in turn his own awakening from the torpor of imperial cynicism to serious curiosity "Why should I know anything about private Jewish affairs?" (What?! Do we hear aright? Is this an efficient colonial administrator speaking? No, it's the bungling administrator who has at least twice in his Palestine administration managed to bring the population to the point of rioting.) And then the really telling observation, which must resonate so profoundly for every church-member of whatever denomination: "it's your own people, and your own ministers, who've handed you over to me. What on earth have you done, to bring that about?"

That he can recognize, even in the face of a despised colonial, a Man betrayed by His own people, those in whom He ought to have been able to repose the greatest reassurance and trust, tells us a lot about Pilate. Underneath the cynicism, callousness and ineptitude, there is that residual human feeling - perhaps something of a Roman's ancient sense of tribe and solidarity - for one so appallingly let down. This is a man no doubt brought up on Livy's history of Marcus Atilius Regulus. One who might with equanimity view citizens enthusiastically killing citizens in the course of civil conflict, but throughout it would never cease to perceive those citizens as fellows of one another, always different from and superior to aliens. To invoke alien assistance in the despatch of their own kind would have been an act unthinkable, the sin of Coriolanus. Regulus was heroized precisely for doing to himself what no other could ever have done to him.

No doubt Jesus, in his circuitous reply (from One Whose customary modus operandi is the parable) is finding a way to explain this very local and Personal and historic phenomenon to the man so conditioned: "I'm only subject to their action because my kingdom is an other-worldly one."

Whether Pilate (unlike Sadducees) has a belief in an after-life, or in a celestial sphere of things, we have no way of knowing. But it must certainly have opened up for him an entirely new vista on the proceedings that the Accused should be laying claim to a status utterly beyond and higher than that of himself or Herod or Tiberius or any other man. (Not having been privy to the finding of the Sanhedrin) He can only have entertained one of two thoughts:

  1. There is something implicit here which is way outside both my jurisdiction and my philosophical capacity

  2. This fellow is a nut-case

From what we know of the historic Pilate, the latter seems far and away the more likely. And even the hardened imperialist may have baulked a little at the idea of executing a nut-case on the vague, homicidal whim of a bunch of impenetrable zealots. That, surely, is the motivation which keeps him hanging in there in the exploration for some definitive and convincing proof of harmlessness to present to the accusers. (Of whose own mind and motivation he is so hopelessly ignorant.) For the moment, while trying to get this into focus: "You are a king then?"

"They're your words."

Not: "I didn't say so." He just did. But obliging Pilate to face up to what Pilate himself may have unintentionally conceded. "What is more important than My extra-terrestrial sovereignty? This world's sovereignty, and My Mission here, is that of the truth."

And then the famous remark which Bacon has immortally and so unfairly castigated as cynicism; but which is surely the fairly desperate appeal of a man whose certainties as we watch are being systematically dismantled by his own interrogation:

"(In the face of this mystery of inexhaustible and meaningless human malevolence), what is truth?"

He asks it of the only Man ever alive Who might have given him (and has given us) the answer. I cannot but wonder whether, in the moment that he turned again to the door leading to the courtyard, inaudibly Jesus answered him:

"Love one another."

When the Councillors are told, "This man is harmless." They add colour to the first indictment. Among other diversification unspecified, they offer:

"He's been stirring up unrest with his teaching, starting in Galilee and now spreading into Judaea."(That is: from the Tetrarchy of Herod to your own Procuratorial Province.

A window of opportunity! Pilate goes back inside.

"Where are you from?"

Jesus, not having heard the remark about Galilee, no doubt connects the enquiry up to the point of their last exchange, relating to this world or the next, and withholds the straightforward piece of information about His provenance.

"Don't you hear all these accusations?" (overlooking that he did and Jesus didn't). "What have you got to say?"

Silence. Pilate has already been told that which is most needful to him. Jesus never wasted words. Never mind. We hear that he's from Galilee, and he evidently doesn't deny it.

It seems that the process having reached the point of formal submission to the Procurator as a public order matter, and of his having entertained that jurisdiction, he now feels unable simply to bounce it back according to his first instinct he has boxed himself into a corner in which he has only the two extreme options left. Apart from this third with which luck has just presented him!

Fortuitously, (Luke 23:7) Antipas is in residence at the Hasmonaean Palace for Passover.

Outside once more "If he's from Galilee, he falls within the Tetrarch's jurisdiction, not mine. Take him to Herod."

Next: Session 3 - The Tetrarch